document resume ed 289 846 sp 029 730document resume ed 289 846 sp 029 730 author burke, peter j.;...
Post on 03-Jan-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 289 846 SP 029 730
AUTHOR Burke, Peter J.; And OthersTITLE The Teacher Career Cycle: Model Development and
Research Report.PUB DATE Apr 87NOTE 59p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association(Washington, DC, April 20-24, 1987).
PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -- ReportsResearch /Technical (143)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Career Ladders; *Delivery Systems; Elementary
Secondary Education; *Incentives; Individual Needs;*Organizational Climate; *Professional Development;Research Needs; *Teacher Attitudes; TeacherCharacteristics; Vocational Maturity
ABSTRACTThis study flows from a theoretical model that views
teachers' careers in the context of a social systems apprcach. Thispaper reports an effort to utilize model building to generateresearch. A discussion is first presented on the process of modelbuilding, and a working model of teacher career stages is presented.The model is based on the following phases of a teaching career: (1)pre-service; (2) induction; (3) competency building; (4) enthusiasticand growing; (5) career frustration; (6) sable and stagnant; (7)career wind-down; and (8) career exit. The concerns andcharacteristics of teachers during each of these phases aredescribed. A discussion is presented on the personal andorganizational influences on the teacher's career cycle. Incentivesfor professional growth are analyzed, and a review is offered ofdiverse professional delivery modes. The research questions thatformed the foundation for this study were derived from the TeacherCareer Cycle Model. These questions concerned whether or not thereare differences among career stages with regard to: (1) self-reportedcharacteristics of teachers; (2) teacher identified personal andorganizational environmental influences; (3) teacher identifiedappropriate incentives and rewards; and (4) teacher identifiedappropriate professional delivery models. Implications of theresearch findings are reviewed in terms of refinement of the CareerCycle Model and future research and practice. A 67-item referencelist is included. (JD)
************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
* from the original document. *
************************************************- g********************
THE TEACHER CAREER CYCLE:MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH REPORT
PETER J. BURKEWISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
JUDITH C. CHRISTENSENNATIONAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
EVANSTON, ILLINOIS
RALPH FESSLERTHE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
JOHN H. MCDONNELLBELOIT COLLEGE
JAY R. PRICEUNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-STEVENS POINT
PAPER PRESENTED AT THE ANNUALMEETING OF THE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
APRII 1987
WAS:INGTON, D.C.
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice o4 Educational Research inc lI ,provinent
UCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
IJ This document hos been reproduced ASreceived from the person or organizationOr121% tiro it
U MrOr Changes have been made to improvereproduction quality
Points of ids* or opinionsststedinthisdOCumerit do not necessarily ',present officialOERI position or policy
PIDIVIDUAL PRESENTATIONS
Model Development Ralph Fessler
Instrumentationand Research Design Jay Price
Characteristics and Concernsof Teachers in theCareer Cycle
Personal andOrganizational Influenceson the Career Cycle
Judith Christensen
Peter &nce
Incentives for ProfessionalGrowth John McDonnell
Professional Delivery- Modes Jay Price
Summary and Implications Ralph Fessler
3
Introduction
In March of 1985, Secretary of Education Terrell Bell made the following
statement:
To attain excellence in education we must attract and hold thebest possible talent in teaching. Teaching competes with otherimportant professions for the most able people. In recognizingthis, the National Commission on Excellence in Education urgedthat "salaries for the teaching profession should be increasedand should be professionally competitive, market-sensitive, andperformance based." The recommendations elaborated further withthe following statements: "School boards, administrators, andteachers should cooperate to develop career ladders for teachersthat distinguish among the beginning instructor, the experiencedteacher, and the master teacher." (p. 16)
The goal of making teaching a more attractive profession for "the best and
the brightest" has caused a scramble to find ways of providing incentives and
making teaching a profession with more career steps or stages. The terms
"master teacher" and "career ladder" are most often associated with efforts to
improve conditions in the profess on. In order to plan for incentives and
career ladders, it is important to look at teachers' careers and what
characteristics are present at various stages. If up to 50% of teachers leave
the profession after seven years (Metropolitan Life and Affiliated Companies,
1985), what is happening to cause them to abandon teaching as a profession?
What professional incentives are appropriate at various stages to keep good
people in the classroom?
Meeting individual needs to increase the effectiveress of instruction is a
value accepted by virtually every educator. This premise has changed
teacher/student ratios, published materials, government spending patterns,
parent involvement, special education programs, and certification laws. A
1
4
great portion of our education dollar is spent trying to meet individual needs
of students. What happens, however, when teachers become students? Are their
individual needs assessed and met in professional development programs? Do
needs change as teachers mature in life experiences and in their careers? How
can professional development programs be tailored to meet these changing needs?
How can professional development provide rewards and incentives to teachers at
various career stages?
In the last ten years, interest in professional development has increased.
This interest is partly attributable to declining enrollments and the
concomitant increase in the seniority of the teaching force. Since fewer new
teachers are entering the work force, pre-service education may no longer be a
major means for stimulating school change. Government intervention in
education has tied support money to school change and new programs are
dependent upon teacher implementation. Changing cultural and ethnic patterns
require new teacher skills as do changing family structures and life styles.
Technology has caused tremendous pressure for professional development programs
as have public outcries for accountability and greater te.tcher competence.
School districts, private foundations, and the government have allocated
substantial sums of money to support professional development for educators.
Legislatures and education agencies across the nation are responding to
recommendations made in the report of the National Commission on Excellence.
There is a need to be certain that the funds that are expended for professional
development will provide the most benefits possible. One way of assuring this
is to understand teachers' needs and provide for their individual differences.
Floden & Feiman (1981) believe that there is a seed to look at how teachers
change throughout their careers.
2
Teacher educators and educational researchers share a desire toimprove elementary and secondary school education. Sinceteachers make a difference in education, one promising way toimprove education is through changes in teachers. The ways inwhich changes can be effected, however, are poorly understood.Many educators and researchers believe that a betterunderstanding of patterns of teacher change would suggest meansfor producing or fostering desired changes (p. 1).
Sykes (1983) states that "career stages and differential rewards encourage
workers to defer gratification and to maintain effort. An unstaged career
which provides a uniform reward schedule based on seniority cannot coimrid
continued commitment" (p. 28).
Focus of Pager
This study flows from a theoretical model developed by the researchers
that views teachers' careers in the context of a social systems approach. This
paper reports an effort to utilize mciel building to generate research. In the
sections that follow, the process of model development is described, a working
model of teacher career stages is presented, and research data generated by
the model constructs are reported. Finally, implications of the research
findings are reviewed in terms of refinement of the career cycle model and
future research and practice.
The Process of Model Building
The process of model building that was utilized in this project is
described in Figure I. This process is a synthesis of the works of numerous
authors who have presented views of model building in the social sciences
(Babbie, 1973; Conant, 1951; Denzin, 1978; Griffiths, 1959; Halpl-, 1958;
Knezevich, 1975; Kerlinger, 1973). The first step in the process is to gather
data that presents a view of the "real world." For this project, this view
refers to an observation of the world of teachers' careers. Data sources used
3
to develop this view included observing common practice in natural settings,
interviewing teachers, analyzing emerging problems and issues, and reviewing
the literature. All of these methods were utilized in the development of the
teacher career cycle model, including interviews of 160 teachers and a
comprehensive literature review (Christensen, et al., 1983).
Insert Figure I here
Based on a synthesis of data collected, an explanation of the real world
of teacher careers was hypothesized into a "working model" (Burke, Fessler, and
Christensen, 1984; Fessler, 1985). This working model is described in the next
section of this paper.
This model building phase of theory development requires the synthesis and
expansion of prior knowledge into a teamwork that adds new insights and
structures for analysis. The working model developed at this stage should not
be viewed as fixed, but rather as a tentative paradigm that offers the current
best explanation of existing data. Subsequent data gathered should be cycled
back into the model to make modifications and refinements. The research
presented in a later section of this paper offers such feedback for
modification and refinement of the "Teacher Career Cycle Model."
Given the dynamic nature of model building described above, the working
model should serve the dual purpose of providing guidelines for action and a
structure for future research. This "guide to action' function provides a
framework for practitioners to use the model constructs as a guide in decision
making, p1-nning and policy formation. A number of such practical implications
and applications exist tor the career cycle model, and are presented later in
4
7
this paper.
For the researcher, the working model offers a framework for research and
further analysis. Model constructs suggest interrelationships among complex
pheromena and hypotheses about additional relationships. This provides a
scheme to systematically drive research and add to the knowledge base and body
of theory in a systematic and interactive way. In the study to be described in
this paper, the career cycle model served as the framework for the design of
instrumentation, the generation of research questions, and the formation of the
research design.
As indicated in Figure I, both the "guide to action" and the "research
generation" components of a model should he fed back into the model constructs
to provide necessary refinements and modifications. It is through this
constant feedback that the knowledge base supporting a model can be expanded
and the model itself can be maintained as an evolving framework that is
responsive to new data.
The Teacher Career Cycle: A Workinz Model
Model Development
The process of model building described above and outlined in Figure I was
applied to the development of the Teacher Career Cycle Model. Extensive
interviews of teachers and a comprehensive literature review provided the
"view" of the real world that was then synthesized into a working model. Much
of this effort flows from the work in adult development and life stages
(Cytrenbaum, 1980; Erikson, 1959; Levinson, et al., 1978; Loevinger, 1976;
Sheehy, 1976). In addition, available literature on teachers' career stages
was reviewed, including the pioneering work of Fuller (1969) and qualitative
5
8
studies reflecting on teachers' careers and professional &velopment (Burden,
1981; Newman, et al., 1980; Peterson, 1978). Also considered were other
theoretical models of teachers' career stages (Gregoric, 1973; Katz, 1972;
Krupp, 1981; Unruh and Turner, 1970; Watts, 1980).
The model presented here builds upon and synthesizes the existing
literature and incorporates data from interviews conducted by the researchers.
The model builds upon previous work by offering a comprehensive and expanded
picture of the career cycle and by placing the career cycle concept into the
context of influences from personal and organizational factors. This approach,
which borrows heavily from social systems theory (Getzels et al., 1968; Hoy and
Miskel, 1987), presents a view of teacher career cycles that is dynamic and
flexible, rather than static and fixed.
Model Components
The model presented in Figure II is an attempt to describe the dynamics of
the teacher career cycle. The model offers a view of the career progression
process which reflects influences from environmental factors (both personal and
organizational). The career cycle itself progresses through stages not in a
lock-step, linear fashion, but rather in a dynamic manner reflecting responses
to the personal and organizational environmental factors. The components of
the model are described in the following sections.
Insert Figure II here
Zpvironmental_Components
The teacher career cycle responds to environmental conditions. A
supportive, nurturing, reinforcing environment can assist a teacher in the
6
9
pursuit of a rewarding, positive career progression. Environmental
interference and pressures, on the other hand, can impact negatively on the
career cycle. The environmental factors are often interactive, making it
difficult to sort out specific influences that impact upon the cycle. In an
attempt to sort out the variables, however, the influences may be separated
into the broad categories of personal environment and organizational
environment.
personal Environment
The personal environment of the teacher includes a number of interactive
yet mutually identifiable facets. Among the variables from the individual
;ersonal environment that impact upon the career cycle are family support
structures, positive critical incidentr, life crises, individual dispositions,
avocational outlets, and the developmental life stages experienced by teachers.
These facets may impact singularly or in combination, and during periods of
intensive importance to individuals, they may become the driving force 1...1
influencing job behavior and the career cycle. Positive, nurturing, and
reinforcing support from the personal environment that does not foster conflict
with career-related responsibilities will likely have favorable impacts upon
the career cycle. Conversely, a negative crisis-ridden, conflict-oriented
personal environment will likely impact negatively upon the teacher's world of
work. The following outline provides illustrations of potential concerns in
each of the above facets.
A. Family
1. Internal support systems
2. Role expectations for teacher/family member
3. Financial couditions
7
10
4. Size of primary unit
5. Special needs of family members
B. Positive Critical Incidents
1. Marriage
2. Birth of children
3. Inheritance
4. Religious experienc,
5. Interaction with "significant others"
C. Crises
1. illness of loved one
2. Death of loved one
3. Personal illness
4. Financial loss
5. Divorce
6. Legal problems
7. Chemical abuse in family
8. Crises of friends or relatives
D. Individual Dispositions
1. Cumulative experiences
2. Interpersonal relations
3. Aspirations and goals
4. Personal values
E. Avocational Interests
1. Hobbies
2. Religious activities
1. Volunteerism
8
11
4. Travel
5. Sports and exercise
6 Other activities that provide outlets for needs, frustrations,
and aspirations
F. Life Stages
1. Relationship to career
2. Relationship to family
3. Assessment of priorities
4. Projection of life goals
It should be noted that the list and description of facets of the personal
environment is not all inclusive. What we are presenting here is an outline of
some key components in the personal environment that impact upon the career
cycle.
Organizational Environment
The organizational environment of schools and school systems comprises a
second major category of influences upon the career cycle. Among the variables
impacting here are school regulations, the management style of administrators
and supervisors, the atmosphere of public trust present in a community, the
expectations a community places upon its educational system, the activities of
professional organizations and associations, and the union atmosphere present
in the system. A supportive posture from these organizational components will
reinforce, reward, and encourage teachers as they progress through their career
cycles. Alternatively, an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion will likely
have a negative impact. The following outline reflects some of the concerns in
these organizational facets:
9
12
4r
A. School Regulations
'rational
2. State
3. Local
4. School based
B. Management Style
1. Atmosphere of trust
2. Inspection vs. support
3. Structure vs. laissez faire
4. Philosophical agreement
C. Public Trust
1. Atmosphere of trust and support
2. Confidence in schools and teachers
3. Financial support
D. Societal Expectations
1. Goals
2. Ethics and values
3. Expectations and aspiritic
4. National reports on teachers and education
5. Special inter.st groups
6. Societal resources for improvement
E. Professional Organisations
1. Leadership
2. Support
3. Professional inservice, support
10
13
F. Union
1. Supportive for teacher
2. Advisory relationship with management, school board
3. Pride vs. negativism
Again, it should be noted that the above list is not all inclusive, but rather
illustrates key organizational factors that impact upon the career cycle.
Components of Career Cyc]
The components of the career cycle are described below.
Pre-Service
The pre-service phase is the Teriod of preparation fnr a specific role.
Typically, thla would be the period of initial preparation in a college or
university. It could also include retraining for a new role or assignment,
either within a higher education institution or as part of an inservice process
within the work setting.
Induction
The induction phase is generally defined as the first few years of
employment during which time the teacher is socialized into the system and
learns the everyday aspects of the job. It is generally a period when a new
teacher strives for acceptance by students, peers, and supervisors and attempts
to achieve a comfort and security level in dealing with everyday problems and
issues.
Competency Building
During this phase of the career cycle, the teacher is striving to improve
teaching skills and abilities. The teacher seeks out new materials, methoos,
and strategies. Teachers at this phase desire to build their skills and are
frequently receptive to new ideas, attend workshops and conferences, and enroll
11
14
in graduate programs.
Enthusiastic and Growing
Even after reaching a high level of competence, an enthusiastic and
growing teacher seeks to continuously progress as a professional. Teachers at
this phase love their jobs, can't wait to get to school every day, and are
constantly seeking new ways to further enrich their teaching. EnthuE.asm and
high levels of job satisfaction are key ingredients here.
Career Frustration
This period is characterized by frustration and disillusionment with
teaching. Job satisfaction is not present to a high degree, and the teacher
reflects upon why he or she is doing this work. Much of what is described in
the recent literature dealing with teacher burn-out can included in this phase.
While this frustration often occurs during a mid-career perif,J, the increased
incidence of similar feelings among teachers in relatively early years of their
careers has been observed. There is evidence that this phenomenon is even
present among many first year teachers.
Stable and Stagnant
Stable and stagnant teachers have resigned themselves to putting in "a
fair day's work for a fair day's pay." These teachers are doing what is
expected of them, but little more. They may be doing an acceptable job, but
are not committed to the pursuit of excellence and growth. These teachers are
often going through the motions to fulfill their terms of contract.
vreer Wind-Down
This phase describes the conditions present when a teacher is preparing to
leave the profession. For some, it may be a pleasant period, reflecting upon
positive experiences and anticipating a career change or retirement. For
12
15
others, it may reflect a bitter period, one in which a teacher resents forced
job termination, or, alternatively, can't wait to get out of an unrewarding
job.
Career Exit
This phase represents the period of time after a tea-her leaves the job.
It may reflect the period of retirement after many years of service,
unemployment after voluntary or elective job termination, or a temporary career
exit for child rearing or alternative career exploration.
Summary
The model outlined above reflects the authors' synthesis and integration
of the existing available data into an explanation of the "real world" of
teacher careers. It presents a series of structures that can be further
studied and developed. As suggested in the model building process described
earlier and outlined in Figure I, the career stage model should not be viewed
as fixed, but rather as a dynamic, working explanation of the real world that
must be subjected to refinement and modification as new data are fed back into
the process.
From Model Building to Research Design
Also outlined in Figure I is the use of a model to generate research.
This application provides a '_:..mework for research that flows from theoretical
constructs and adds to the general data base, assists in defining appropriate
guides to action, and provides feedback to refine and modify model constructs.
The research design and instrument development reported in the next section of
this paper were driven by the constructs in the Teacher Career Cycle Model, and
the data collected is being used to provide feedback for model modification and
refinement.
13
The_Research
The major thrust of the study was to gather data to test the constructs of
the Teacher Career Cycle Model and to explore implications for professional
development programs and rewards and incentives for teachers at various stages
o" cheir careers.
Research Ouestions
The research questions that formed the foundation for this study were
derived from the Teacher Career Cycle Model. These were:
1. Are there differences among career stages with regard to self-reported characteristics of teachers ?
2. Are there differences among career stages with regard to teacheridentified personal and organizational environmental influences?
3. Are there differences among career stages with regard to teacheridentified appropriate incentives and rewards?
4. Are there differences among career stages with regard to teacheridentified appropriate professional development delivery modes?
Instrument Development
In order to address the research questions it was necessary develop a
series of instruments. This development is briefly described here and reported
more fully in Price (1986), together with factor analyses and alpha reliability
coefficients.
To respond to the first question, two instruments were developed. The
first was the Self-Selection of Career Stages (SSCS) instrument. The SSCS
consisted of eight descriptive paragraphs corresponding to eight facets of the
career cycle model. These descriptions were composites based on an extensive
review of the adult development and teacher career literature, as well as
interviews with teachers (Christensen, et al., 1983). The descriptions in the
14
17
SSCS are very similar to those reported on pages 11-12 of this paper.
Respondents read each description and selected the description which most
closely corresponded to their present career phase. During initial pilot
testing, respondents indicated little trouble identifying their career phase,
but many objected to the several labels identifying certain career phases. In
subsequent use, labels were deleted from the descriptions and no further
problems in use were reported.
The second insttumnt designed to respond to research question one was the
Teacher Career Cycle Inventory (TCCI). The TCCI was developed in a two-stage
process. Practicing teachers enrolled in graduate classes at four institutions
responded to the self-selection paragraphs and then wrote statements describing
why they had selected a particular career stage. These statements were coded
according to career stage, categorized by similarity, and edited, yielding 107
statements for pilot testing. Respondents were to indicate, on a five-point
scale, the accuracy of each statements description.
Following pilot testing, TCCI items were submitted to an item screening
process using analysis of variance and common factor-factor analysis. In this
process, each item served as the dependent variable with Self-Selected Career
Stage as the independent variable. To be included in the final version of the
TCCI, each item (1) obtained a significant difference among the SSCS groups at
or beyond the p .10 level, and (2) obtained a relatively high loading on a
single factor after a varimax rotation of the factor matrix. This process
reduced the number of TCCI items from 107 to 58. Of these items, 24 were items
generated by teachers at a single career stage while 34 items were generated by
teachers in more than one of the career stage groups.
Additional information about characteristics of teachers at various career
15
18
stages was obtained though demographic information requested in the survey.
To respond to the second research question, the Personal/
Organizational Influences Inventory (P/OII) was developed to assess
respondents' perceptions of current personal and organizational influences on
their careers. Instrument items were drawn from the literature and from the
experience of the researchers involved in this project (Burke & Heidemln,
1985). Respondents indicated the extent of positive or negative influence for
each item using a seven-point scale. An earlier draft and testing of this
approach (Burke, et al., 1983) established that teachers perceived positive and
negative personal and organizational influences on their careers which were in
part related to their years of teaching experience.
Following pilot testing, the P/OII items were submitted to the same
screening process used with TCCI which reduced the number of items from 67 to
56.
To examine the preferred incentives of teachers at various career stages,
research question three, the Teacher Incentives Inventory (TII), was developed.
The TII consisted of forty-six incentive items drawn from the literature on
existing and recommended types of incentives as well as from the researchers'
experiences. The items covered intrinsic, extrinsic, autonomy, and conditions
of the workplace categories of incentives. Respondents indicated both the
availability of each stated incentive in their settings and the appropriateness
of the incentive for themselves. Two five-point scales were used. Respondents
also listed the three incentives that were most and least important to them.
The final instrument developed was the Professional Development Delivery
Modes Inventory (PDDMI). This instrument, which was designed to respond to
research question four, consisted of seventeen items drawn from the literature
16
19
on existing and recommended activities as well as from the researchers'
experiences with professional development activities. The delivery modes
included activities such as university coursework, workshops, exchange
teaching, and conference attendance. Respondents indicated both the
availability and the appropriateness of each item using two five-point scales.
Respondents also listed the three modes or activities which were most and least
important to them.
Although the same screening procedure used above was again used to analyze
the TII and PDOMI responses, no items were eliminated since their content was
believed to represent the range of incentive and delivery mode options
generally available to teachers in the public schools. To "ltermine the
psychometric characteristics of these instruments only the "appropriate" scale
responses were analyzed.
Sample
Three thousand six hundred teachers were systematically random sampled
from a market survey firm's master list of approximately 1,500,000 teachers in
the United States. This group was randomly divided into seven groups of
teachers; 1200 of whom received all the instruments while the six remaining
groups of 400 each received various sets of four instruments (e.g., the
demographic sheet, the SSCS, and two of the remaining instruments). Thus, each
instrument was paired with every other instrument and it was possible to assess
the effects of instrument length with respect to return rates.
The total number of returns was 778 (21.6%) with the highest group rate of
27.8% and the lowest at 19.3% for the group receiving all instruments.
17
20
daalutia
The first research question, relating to differences among career
stages with regard to self-reported characteristics of teachers, was addressed
in two analyses relating to the validity of the Teacher Career Cycle Model.
The Self-Selection 4f Career Stage (SSCS) categories served as an independent
variable and the responses to the Teacher Career Cycle Inventory (TCCI) as the
dependent variables in a multivariate analysis of variance. This analysis was
then followed by a discriminant function analysis to determine the dimensions
and similarities among teachers at various stages of their careers given their
reported characteristics on the TCCI. This process was repeated for question
two, but in this case the Personal /Organizational Influences Inventory (P/OII)
was used in place of the Teacher Career Cycle Inventory (TCCI) for identifying
dependent variables.
The remaining questions were addressed with the same types of analyses
descrthed above. For these questions, however, the "appropriate" ratings from
the Teacher Incentives Inventory and the Professional Development Delivery
Modes Inventory served as the dependent variables, and the categories of the
SSCS as the independent variable.
Results
Research Question One: Are there differences among career states with
regard_to self-reported characteristics of teachers?
A. Table 1 contains the basic demographic infoLmation about the
respondents in this study while Table 2 contains the proportions of teachers at
the various career stage levels on the Self-Selection instrument. The profile
of these characteristics indicates that the typical teacher in this study is
about 41 years of age and has attained about 16 years of experience in
18
21
education, with nearly 11 years spent in the present position. The typical
teacher is most likely to be a married female, employed at the elementary level
in a rural or small city location in a district having 2,000-5,000 students.
This teacher is as likely to have a bachelor's degree as a master's degree, is
affiliated with the NEA, and holds clacsroom teaching as a career goal. The
teacher rates her career stage as enthusiastic and growing.
Insert Tables 1 & 2 here
B. Table 3 contains the results of the step-wise discriminant aialysis on
the Teacher Career Cycle Inventory (TCCI). For this analysis and all
subsequent analyses Preservice teachers were combined with Induction teachers,
and Career Exit teachers were combined with Career Wind-Down teachers due tc
small group sizes.
Insert Table 3 here
From this table it is apparent that the various career stage groups differ
from one another along four significant dimensions. The coefficient of
discriminating power (Tatsuoka, 1970) indicated that 78% of the variance in
discriminant space was attributable to differences among the career groups'
responses. Significant univariate results are indicated by an asterisk for
each item.
The function coefficients, which identify those items of greatest
disagreement among the groups, together with the group means, indicate that the
first function identifies teaching enthusiasm. On this function, groups 1, 2,
19
'
22
and 3 have relatively higher levels of agreement that deciding what to teach is
exciting (#1), they have a lot to learn about teaching (#5), and they are
enthusiastic about teaching (#49). The remaining groups (#4, 5, and 6)
indicate that statements about increasing difficulty with being enthusiastic
( #6), frustration (#9), and discouraging academic climate (#58) tend to be
descriptive of them.
The second function, based on the coefficients and group means, appears to
identify differences in characterizations of interactive teaching skills. The
first three groups tend to report at relatively higher levels that they strive
to improve teaching skills (#43), enjoy students' responses to their teaching
(#51), have a lot of energy (#14), and have a lot to learn about teaching (#5).
The other three groups report, in relative terms, that they are less
comfortable with what they teach (#50), provide fewer opportunities to meet
with parents (#45), and enjoy their colleagues somewhat less (#32).
The third function discriminates among the groups in terms of differences
in levels of attitudes towards students and teaching. Groups, 1, 2, 5, and 6
tend to express at relatively higher levels that they are discouraged by
academic climate (#58), enjoy the students (#37), would like to teach part-time
(#35), and have more difficulty with enthusiasm (#6). Groups 3 and 4, on the
other hand, tend to report at relatively higher levels that administration does
not want to hear teachers' problems (#24) and that there are few rewards for
professional efforts (#46), and that they have established rapport with
students (#21) and are enthusiastic about teaching (#49).
The fourth function discriminates among groups based on differences in
attitudes towards teaching as a profession. On this function, groups 3 and 6
express at relatively higher levels that they try to improve their teaching
20
23
skills (#43), enjoy their colleagues (#32), are involved in curriculum
development (#15), and reflect on their teaching careers with pride (#2). On
the other hand, groups 1, 2, 4, and 5 indicated that they were not so
optimistic about teaching (#29), tended not to enjoy students as much (#37),
and were not as comfortable or secure as a result of experience (#20).
In general, this analysis indicates that self-reported characteristics of
teachers are related to teachers' self-reported career stages in at least four
ways or dimensions which include teaching enthusiasm, interactive teaching
skills, students and teaching, and teaching as a profession. In general, these
differences indicate that the first three cr-raer stages report higher levels of
enthusiasm and teaching skill concerns as well as more concern for students,
while the latter three stages show higher levels of concern for those aspects
of teaching which are bureaucratic or debilitative in the occupation.
To determine more exactly where the differences lay between groups,
individual function scores were computed and analyzed in a univariate analysis
of variance with self-reported career stage as the independent variable. As in
the preceding analysis, the Pre-service teachers were combined with Induction
teachers, and Career Exit teachers were combined with Career Wind-Down teachers
due to the small numbers in these groups.
Insert Table 4 here
The results, displayed in Table 4, indicate that, in general, the career
stages of Stable and Stagnant, Frustration, and Wind-Down/Exit are less
positive in their self-characterizations than the Induction, Competency
Building, and Enthusiastic/Growing stages. Yet, as is indicated by the paired
21
24
tests, there are significant pair-wise differences in these levels of
characteristics. On Function I, Career Wind-Down teachers are more like
Induction level teachers in their enthusiasm and less like the Stable and
Stagnant or Frustrated teachers. Similarly, significant differences were
obtained among the Induction vs. Enthusiastic/Growing and Competency vs.
Enthusiastic/Growing groups on the first and fourth functions.
What these pair-wise results suggest, overall, is the validity of at least
a six-stage model of teachers' careers in terms of their different
characteristics. At this point, because of the nature of this survey, no
causal attributions can be made for these pair-wise differences.
Research Question Two: Are there differences among career stages with
regard
influences?
Table 5 contains the results of the step-wise discriminant analysis on the
Personal/Organizational Influences Inventory. As in the precedirg analysis,
Preservice teachers were combined with Induction teachers, and Career Exit
teachers were combined with Career Wind-Down teachers due to the small numbers
in these groups.
Insert Table 5 here
From this table it is apparent that the various career stage groups differ
from one another on three significant dimensions. The coefficient of
discriminating power (Tatsuoka, 1970) indicated that 53% of the variance in
discriminant space was attributable to differences among the career groups'
22
25
respon es.
The function coefficients, which indicate the items of greatest
disagreer'nt among the groups, together with the group means, indicate that the
first function discriminates on the basis of personal needs and goals. In
relative terms, career groups 1-3 tended to report higher levels of influence
for principal's support (#10), personal goals and aspirations (#21), drive to
fulfill personal needs (#44), and union relationship with management (#14). On
the other hand, again in relative terms, groups 4-6 reported mcre influence for
principal's management style (#43), need for security (#51), and travel (#3).
Ths second function, given the coefficients and group means, appears to
discriminate among groups on the basis of acceptance by administration and
community. Groups 1 and 3 reported relatively higher levels of influence of
philosophic agreement with the principal (#22), relationships with friends
(#30), societal expectations (#9), and volunteer activities (#5). The latter
four groups, on the other hand, reported relatively lower negative levels of
influence for principal's support of teachers (#10), union relationship with
administration (#14), previous work (#15), family finances (#27), a family
member's substance abuse (#34), and need for community acceptance (#42).
The third function, given the coefficients and group means, appears to
discriminate on the basis of extrinsic support mechanisms. For groups 2 and 3,
the influence of principal's management style (#43), family expectations (#35),
non-union professional association support (#18), and research on effective
teaching (#19) held relatively higher levels of influence. On the other hand,
groups 1, 4, 5, and 6 reported relatively higher levels of influence for
previous work (#15), family finances (#27), and personal relations with friends
(#30).
23
26
In summary, this analysis indicates that differences in teachers' reports
about influences on their careers are related to their self-reported care.r
stages in at least three ways or dimensions. These dimensions include personal
needs and goals, acceptance by management and community, and extrinsic support
2echanisms. In general, the results indicate that teachers within stage groups
1-3 report higher positive levels of influence for personal needs and goals,
acceptance, and importance of support organizations. Stages 4-6, however,
exhibit somewhat lower levels on these "needs and influences" dimensions to the
point where administrative influences are perceived as negative.
To determine more exactly where the differences lay between groups,
individual function scores were computed and analyzed in an univariate analysis
of variance with the self-reported career stage as the independent variable.
Insert Table 6 here
The results, contained in Table 6, indicate that, as in the TCCI, stages
4-6 differ from stages 1-3. For example, the reported influence of personal
needs and goals, Function 1, is greater for the Induction, Competency, and
Enthusiastic/G.:owing stages, compared to the Stable al.d Frustrated stages, yec7
these first stages do nr differ among themselves. It also appears that the
Career Wind-Down Lrop is more similar to the first three stages in these
influences than to the Stable and Frustrated groups.
Sttges 1-3 also reported higher levels of influence on both Functions II
and III, the Acceptance and Extrinsic Influences, than stages 4.6 although they
do not differ among themselves. Also on these functions Stable,
Frustration, and Wind-Down stages also do not differ among themselves.
24
27
One interpretation of these pair-wise results suggests that there may only
be a two- or three-stage model of teachers' careers in terms of the differences
in influences on their careers. An alternative possibility is that
questionnaire-survey methodology may be too insensitive to the types and
importance of the various influences on teachers' careers. An additional
possibility is that while there may indeed be six or eight stages of teachers
careers, several stages have similar profiles with regard to environmental
influences.
Research Ouestion 3: Are there differences among career stages with
ruprtratrachatidentifildfipsinxiAgg_bcentives_and rewards?
To answer this question, the items in the Teacher Incentives Inventory
were analyzed in combination tiling discriminant analysis and singly using
univariate analyses of variance with career stage as the independent variable.
The results of the discriminant analysis are presented here while the
univariate result/4 are indicated by an asterisk on those nine items for which
significant group differences were obtained.
Insert Table 7 here
Table 7 contains the results of the step-wise discriminant analysis on the
TII. In this analysis, four significant discriminant functions were obtained.
The omega coefficient indicated that 45% of the variance in discriminant space
was attributable to differences among the career groups' "appropriate" ratings.
Interpretation of these functions, given the standardized coefficients and
group means, indicates that the first function discriminates based on group
25
28
differences in ratings of teaching incentives. In general, career groups 1-3
are relatively higher on the items relating to extra work (#24), loan
forgiveness (#32), professional advancement (#38), and control of instructional
decisions (#43). On the other hand, groups 4-6 tend to rate at relatively
higher levels the appropriateness of promotion to administration ( #13), early
retirement options (#27), and released time for professional activities (#37).
On the second function, discrimination among the career groups appea' to
be based on differences in ratings of concrete incentives. For groups 6, 2,
and 3 designation as master teacher (#4), written praise ( #9), longer day/year
with pay ( #28), and leadership opportunities (#21) tended to elicit higher than
average ratings. However, for groups 4 and 5 aide support (#18), physical
environment (#22), loan forgiveness (#32), and professional advancement
opportunities (#38) tended to elicit relatively higher ratings.
The third function appears to discriminate based on praise and support
incentives. Groups 5 and 3 tended to have relatively higher levels on
organizational recognition ( #7), written praise (#9), support for research
(#36), and extra work options (#24). On the other hand, groups 4, 6, 1, and 2
tended to have relatively higher levels on student praise (#12), administrative
promotion (#13), loan forgiveness ( #32), and instructional decision making
(#24).
On the fourth function, discrimination among groups appears to be based on
praise and recognition. For groups 1, 2, and 5, verbal praise (#8), leadership
opportunities (#21), and flexible w.rkday (#29) received relatively higher
ratings, while among groups 3, 4, and 6, promotion to administration (#13),
written praise (#9), and praise from students (#12) tended to receive
relatively higher ratings.
26
In general, this analysis indicates that incentives among teachers are
differentially related to their career stage in at least four ways which
include teaching incentives, concrete incentives, praise/support incentives,
and praise/recognition. What is important about this analysis is that of the
46 items included, only 9 items approached the traditional levels of
significance in a univariate analysis. The discriminant analysis, however,
increased the discriminating power of the item set and increased the number of
items.
In general, it appears that stages 4-6 rate appropriateness of incentives
at lower levels than do stages 1-3. However, it is apparent from the group
means that this is not a constant phenomenon and that at times the pre-
ber7.A.z.e/induction group may appear similar to other stages, as in functions 3
and 4.
To determine more precisely where Air-wise differences occurred,
individual discriminant scores were calculated and submitted to a univariate
analysis of variance. These results are displayed in Table 8 and, in general,
indicate that stages 4-6 differ very little from stages 1-3 in terms of rewarzl
preferences.
Insert Table 8 here
Only on function 1 do the differences clearly distinguish the first three
stages from the Frustrated, Stable and Stagnant, and Wind-Down stages. Thus,
in terms of the Career Cycle Model, these results indicate that only a two- or
three -stage model might be needed to account for differences in rated
appropriateness levels of the various incentives. As indicated in previous
30
27
comments, these results may be a function of the questionnaire methodology
being insensitive to the meanings and importance that teachers place on these
incentives at their various career stages, or to the simple notion that
teachers at different career stages have similar incentive preference profiles.
Research Question 4: Are there differences among career stages with
ruLtslteitAlintifdslerded appropriate professional development delivery
modes?
To answer his question the "appropriate" responses on the Professional
Development Delivery Modes Inventory were initially analyzed using discriminant
analysis. This analysis indicated that only 19% of the variance in
discriminant space was attributable to career group differences. Since this
percent was relatively low, univariate analysis on each of the items was
performed followed by the Scheffe-range test to determine among which pairs of
means the group differences lay. These results are presented in Table 9.
Insert Table 9 here
The results of these univariate analyses indicate that the differences on
only 7 out of the 17 items approached traditional levels of significance. For
2 of these 7 'tems, the conservative Scheffe procedure produced no pair-wise
significant differences between group means. The remaining 5 items, however,
did obtain significant pair-wise comparisons. In these instances, the teachers
at the Competency Building stage rated, at higher levels of appropriateness,
university coursework, university-conducted workshops, classroom visitation,
conference attendance, and staff meetings. These higher ratings contrasted
28
31
with the lower ratings given these items by the other career stages.
In general, therefore, the differences in teachers' ratings of
appropriateness of the 17 PDDMI items tended to be, at best, only slightly
related to differences in self-reported career stages. In statistical terms,
this is revealed by the average et& coefficient (the ratio of between groups
sum of squares to total sum of squares) equal to .026 across the 17 items or
roughly 3* of the variance.
,Summary and Implications
In general, the analyses reported here have determined that teachers'
self-characterizations of their careers and the sources of influence on them
are multidimensional in nature and differ according to the career stage that
teachers report themselves to be in. These differences in characteristics were
associated with enthusiasm, teaching skills, interaction with students, and
attitude toward the occupation. With respect to influences on careers, the
differences found were related to community/administrative acceptance, personal
goals/needs, and extrinsic influence mechanisms. In terms of incentive
preferences related to career stages, teachers differed in perceived levels of
appropriateness relating to monetary, security, praise, and perquisite types of
incentives. In terms of development delivery modes, the main aspect
differentiating teachers at various career stages was the appropriateness of
university/off-site experiences vs. locally developed on-site experiences.
In terms of actual career stage differences, career stages 4-6 tended to
respond at lower, less positive levels on the named dimensions in contrast to
stages 1-3 which tended to De at higher, more positive levels. This tendency,
however, was nr,t consistent across all dimensions; for example, on cartain
29
dimensions, the Career Wind-Down tea-hers were at levels similar to Induction
level teachers.
Feedback into Model Constructs
The results of this research support a number of the constructs presented
in the Teacher Career Cycle Model (Figure II). First, this work adds to the
literature on teachers' careers by supporting the model's contention that there
are more than the two or three career stages that were reported in earlier
analyses (e.g., Burden, 1981; Krupp, 1981; Katz, 1972; Unruh & Turner, 1970).
It also supports the notion that attitudes towards teaching, students, and
schools change as teachers enter different stages. Furthermore, these
attitudes and characteristics are multidimensional in nature; there is no
single attitude that characterizes teachers, but rather under ying dimensions
along which attitudes and perceptions of influence lie.
Second, this work and the results suggest that the social systems approach
proposed in the Teacher Career Cycle Model is an appropriate framework from
which to view occupational characteristics. Though the work here reports
nothing about causal flow analysis which would support the social systems
approach, the results reported do support the informational constructs
generated by the model. These constructs are necessary though not sufficient
evidence for the validity of the social systems model proposed to account for
teachers' careers.
One possible modification of the career cycle model is suggested by some
of the reported data. The similarities among clusters of stages with regard to
environmental influences, appropriate incentives, and appropriate delivery
modes 'suggest that the eight or six stages may be collapsed into two or three
for some units of analysis. Perhaps a functional approach could be to consider
30
an "emerging, growing period," a "leveling, stable period," and a "frustrated,
declining period." The picture here is not at all clear, and more research is
needed to explore this and related options.
Generation of Research and Guide to Action
As indicated in Figure I and the supporting narrative, model constructs
should provide a framework for future research as well as a "guide to action"
to assist practitioners in decision making, planning, and policy formation.
Implications of this model-driven research can be applied to both future
research and guides for practitioners.
Implications for Research
Numerous implications exist for additional research. One immediate need
is to attempt to replicate this study with additional follow-up procedures to
stimulate a larger response rate. The small return reported earlier in this
paper severely limits the generalizability of the results.
There is a need as well to complement these data with external perceptions
of teachers' career stages. The instruments developed in this study should be
adapted to solicit perceptions from peers, principals, parents and students.
Comparing data from these alter perceptions would provide a rich basis for
further analysis.
It would be valuable as well to complement these data with carefully
selected case studies and teacher interviews. These qualitative procedures
could add considerable depth to these reported results and could yield
additional feedback into the model constructs.
The model constructs and instruments developed in this study could be used
to explore other factors that might be related to, or have an impact on,
teacher career cycles. It would be interesting, for example, to examine the
31
34
relationship between teacher career stages and variables such as teacher
cognitive maturity, teacher locus of control, teacher value systems, teacher
dogmatism, the organizational climate of schools, teacher or principal
leadership traits, and student perflrmance. The examination of these and
related questions would add greatly to the understanding of teachers' careers
and would provide valuable feedback for modification and refinement of the
Teacher Career Cycle Model.
An additional line of needed research would be to apply the model and
adapt the instruments to explore the career cycles of alternative role
incumbents (e.g., principals, counselors, professors, superintendents).
Implications for Practice
The most important implication of this research for practitioners is the
substantiation of the existence of teacher career stages. Teachers in
preparation should find this information both valuable and usable in their
careers. The first step in solving any problem is the recognition that a
problem exists. If teachers (or student teachers) see some of the
characteristics of the negative stages in their work, this recognition should
lead to the design of steps to be taken to move into a more positive stage.
Supervisors could assist in this process by stimulating awareness and offering
support. Characteristics of teacher enthusiasm, interactive teaching skills,
attitudes toward teaching and toward students, and impressions of the teaching
profession, are all measurable through the TCCI. These characteristics serve
as a measure of an individual's career stage. Pre-service, induction, and
inservica teachers all have specific needs and attitudes that are described in
this research.
Another important finding from this research project for teacher education
32
3 5
is the linking of carer stage to appropriate incentives and the coupling of
staff development program delivery techniques to incentives and to career
stage. Incentives in both the financial and nonfinancial categories that are
selected as appropriate by teachers at different stages have implications for
teacher educators who plan long-range staff development programs. It is
important to know which teachers react positively to praise and support, which
need concrete incentives, and which respond to money and security items only.
The design of staff development programs exists beyond the selection of
teacher incentives. Professional growth experiences can be designed in 'several
ways, from formal classroom instruction to independent professional reading.
This research aligns the most appropriate techniques for teachers with their
self-selected career stages. Staff development program pro-riders may find this
alignment very valuable in planning the design and implementation of programs.
It is crucial to know the audience and to put a program together that meets the
needs of that audience for it to be successful. This research gives direction
to such an individualized approach.
An additional implication for teacher educators from this research is the
isolation of the teacher induction period as a specific stage in the
professional growth of a teacher. Attitudes are positive at this stage, but
many needs exist. Teacher induction has been studied by several teacher
educators over the past few years. The results of this study support and
expand upon that previous work.
The results given here support the current movement toward career-long
teacher education that involves significant consideration of induction,
renewal, and redirection activities. Many teacher educators and staff
developers are aware of the need to fine tune preservice preparation, are
designing means to meet the needs of beginners, and are involved in the
development of programs for career teachers. This research provides data that
support a career long approach to teacher professional growth.
If the work in teacher career stages is to go beyond the "interesting to
know" level and have an impact upon the educational scene, there must be
appropriate organizational and supervisory responses. Several authors have
addressed this issue (for a summary see Christensen et al., 1983a, pp. 15-22).
Some additional observations drawn from the career cycle model are
summarized below:
--The traditional inservice and professional growth activities that
emphasize improved teaching skills are appropriate at certain points in a
teacher's career, particularly during the skill building periods
associated with the induction and competency building phases, and during
the enthusiastic and growing period.
--The concept of staff development and professional growth should be
broadened to include concern for the personal needs and problems of
teachers. This might include support systems to assist teachers in
dealing with family problems, chemical abuse, financial planning, and
crisis resolution. Larger school districts must examine means for
internal support systems for such purposes, while smaller districts could
explore linkages to existing social service agencies.
--Organizational policies should be examined to provide support for teachers
at various phases of the career cycle. Organizational responses to
varying teacher personal needs should include liberal sabbatical policies,
modifications in job assignments, job-sharing, liberal leave of absence
policies, and other procedures that might give teachers the opportunity to
34
explore career alternatives and pursue solutions to personal problems.
--Approaches to staff development and professional growth that advocate
personalized, individualized support systems should be emphasized. In
searching for such models, particular attention might be given to the work
of Sergiovanni and Starrett (1979); Herzberg (1959); Bents and Howey
(1981); Edelfelt and Johnson (1975); Fessler and Burke (1983); and
Glickman (1981).
In summary, the career cycle concept suggests a need to view professional
growth and staff development in a comprehensive manner. While the traditional
skill building approaches are appropriate at certain points in a teacher's
career, there is a need to go beyond this view in order to consider the
personal needs of teachers ann organizational practices that impact upon
teacher performance.
35
38
References
Babbie, E.R. (1973). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bell, T.H. (1984, March 14). Peer review model for managing systems of
performance pay. Education Week, 2 (25), 16.
lents, R.K., & Howey, K.R. (1981). Staff Development--Change in the
individual. In Dillon-Peterson (Ed.) Staff development. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 11-36.
Burden, P. (1981). Teachers' perceptions of their personal and professional
development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern
Educational Research Association, Des Moines, IA. (Photocopied.)
Burke, P., Fessler, R., & Christensen, J. (1983, April). Teacher life-span
development' An instrument to identify stages of teacher growth. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada.
Burke, P., Fessler, R., & Christensen, J. (1984). Teacher career stage
Implications for staff development. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Burke, P.J., & Heideman, R.G. (1985). Career -lone teacher education.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Chapman, D.W., & Hutcheson, S.M. (1982). Attrition from teaching careers: A
discriminant analysis. American Educational Research Journal. 12, 93-
105.
Christensen, J., Burke, P., & Fessler, R. (1983, April). Teacher life-span
development: A summary and synthesis of the literature. Paper present-,d
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.
36
Christensen, J., Burke, P., Fessler, R., & Hagstram, D. (1983). Teachers'
career development. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse.
Conant, J.B. (1951). Science and common sense. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Cytrenbaum, S. (1980). Adult development theory and research: Implications
for faculty development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Denzin, N.K. (1978). The re ea ch ac A theoretical introduction to
socialized methods. New York: McGraw Hill.
Easterly, J., Williston, A., & Allen, N. (1982). The implications of
development stage theory on the expertise of teachers. NATE Viewpoints,
9-12.
Edelfelt, R.A., & Johnson, M. (Eds.). (1975). Rethinking in-service
education. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Egan, K.B. (1982). giirsitersonsr the act of
becoming teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York, NY. (Photocopied.)
Erikson, E.H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: International
Universities Press.
Feiman, S., & Floden, R.E. (1983). 6 consumer's guide to teacher development.
East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State
University. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 207970).
Fessler, R., Burke, P., & Christensen, J. (1983, April). Teach, r career cycle
model: A framework for viewing teacher growth needs. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.
37
40
Fessler, R., & Burke, P. (1983). Regions and zones of teacher behavior: A
guide for personalizing supervision. Educational Leadership, 70-72.
Fessler, R. (1985). A model for teacher professional growth and development.
In P.J. Burke & R.G. Heideman (Eds.), Career-long teacher education (pp.
193). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of Teachers: A developmental conceptualization.
American Educational Research 207-226.
Fuller, F., & Bown, 0. (1975). Becoming a teacher. Teacher Education,
Seventy - Fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part 2. aicago: University of Chicar.:3 Press.
George, A.H. (1978). Measuring self. task, and impact: A manual for use of
the teacher co^cerns questionnaire. Austin: The University of Texas at
Austin.
Getzels, J., Lipham, J., & Campbell. R. (1968). Administration as a social
process: Theory. research. and practice. New York: Harper and Row.
Glickman, C. (1981). DelEglogmentglorhelping teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Gregoric, A.F. (1973). Developing plans for professional growth. NASSP
Bulletin, 1-8.
Griffiths, D.E. (1959). Administrative theory. New York: Appleton- Century-
Crofts.
Halpin, A.W. (1958). theory in Chicago:
'University Chicago Press
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work.
New York: John Wiley.
38
41.
Howsam, R.B., Corrigan, D.C., Denemark, G.W., & Nash, R.J. (1976). Educating
a_orofession. Washington, DC: AACTE, Bicentennial Commission on
Education for the Profession of Teaching.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C.G. (1987). Educational administration: Theorv, research
and practice. New York: Random House.
Katz, L.G. (1972). Development stages of preschool teachers. Elementary
School Journal, 22, 50-54. (ERIC No. EJ 064 759)
Keilinger, F.N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research, 2nd ed. New
York: Hold, Rinehart & Winston.
Knezevich, S. (1975). Administration of public education. New York: Harper
& Row.
Krupp, J. (1981). Adult development: Implications for staff development.
Manchester, CT.
Lanier, J.E., & Little, J.W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M.C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of researe on teaching (pp. 527-569). New York:
Macmillan.
Levinson, D.J., Darrow, C.N., Klein, E.B., Levinson, M.H., & McKee,B. (1978).
The seasons of a man's life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Little, J.W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace
conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 12,
ewt-340.
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Metropolitan Life and Affiliated Companies. (1985). The Metropolitan Life
Survey of Former Teachers in America. Conducted by Louis Harris and
Associates, Inc.
Miller, S. (1983). Assessing Luz of teacher growth: A prokessional
39
42
development tool. Unpublished master's thesis, National College of
Education, Evanston, IL.
Moore, K.D., & Hanley, P.E. (1982). An identification of elementary teacher
needs. American Educational Research Journal, 12, 137-144.
Newman, K.K., Burden, P.R., & Applegate, J. (1980). Helping teachers examine
their long-range development. Paper presented at the Association of
Teacher Educators annual conference, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 204 321).
Peterson, A. (1919). Teachers' changing perceptions of self and others
throughout the teaching career: Some perspectives from an interview study
of fifty retired secondary school teachers. Paper presented to the
Southwest Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Price, J.R. (1986). ,le teacher career cycle: Development and validation of
research instruments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Ryan, K., Flora, R., Newman, K., Peterson, A., Burden, P., & Mager, J.
(Speakers). (1979). The stages in teaching: New perspectives on staff
development for teachers' needs. (ASCD audio-tape). Presentation to the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Anaheim, CA.
Sacks, S.R., & Harrington, G.N. (1982). Ltacientaerocessf
role transition. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York. (Photocopied.)
Sergiovanni, T., & Starratt, R. (1970). Supervision_ Human perspectives.
2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shavelson, & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical
thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational
40
Research, 11, 455-498.
Sheehy, G. (1976). Passages: Predictable crises of_adult_life. New York:
Dutton.
Sitter, J.P., & Lanier, P.E. (1982). Student teaching: A stare in the
development of a teacher_ or _oeriod of consolidation? Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New
York. (Photocopied.)
Super, D.E., & Hall, D.T. (1973). Career development: Exploration and
planning. In M.R. Rosenzweigh & W W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of
psychology. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.
Sykes, G. (1985). Public policy and the problem of teacher quality: The need
for screens and magnets. in L. Shuman (Ed.), Handbook of teachinr and
policy. New York: Longman.
Tatsuoka, M.M. (1970). Diapijalnatsmalysis: Selected topics in advanced
statistics #6. Champaign: Institute Personally and Ability Testing.
Unruh, A., & Turn L. (1970). Suvervision for change !And innovation.
Boston: flown, Mifflin.
Watts, Heidi. (1980). antingjunlr ahead, or how the
teachers' center can attend to stages in teachers' development. San
Francisco: Far West Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 200 604).
41
44
Figure 1
Model Building
Literature NaturalReviews Settings.4/
EmergingProblems/IssuesInterviews
ttt I Gather32 Datato-
1.. Develop Explanation
r of Real World'Woricing Model"
et2
I
1 1Generate Generate Guide toResearch Action
442
5Ralph Flossier
The Johns Hopkins University
LifeStages
FLmilyDYNAMICS OF THE TEACIIEIt
CAREERS CYCLEUnion Regulations
AvoiationalOutlets
PersonalEnvironment
PositiveCritical
Incidents
ProfessionalOrganizations
OrganizationalEnvironment
ManagementStyle
IndividualDispositions Crises
SocietalExpectations
PublicTrait
w
Pre-Service Induction
Career CompetencyExit Building
CareerCycle
CareerWind -Down
Enthusiasticand
Growing
!easier, R. (1983) A model for teacherprofessional growth and development.In P. J. Burke and R. C. Heideman(Ids.), Careerlone teacher education(pp. 181-193). Springfield, IL,Charles C. Thomas, publisher.
46
Stableand
Stagnant
CareerFrustration
4 7
H
TABLE 1
Demographic Characteristics of Sample
ALI x - 41.4 s.d. .. 9.3
Years Experience x - 15.8 s.d. - 8.2Years in Position x - 10.7 s.d. - 8.1
Gender
Male - 243(31.2%) Female - 531(68.3%)
Marital Status
Married - 567(72.9%) Unmarried - 200(25.7%)No Response - 11(1.5%)
Teaching Assignment
Elementary - 327(42%) Middle-Jr. High - 197(25.3%)High School - 210(27%) Other - 44(5.6%)
School Location
Urban - 60(7.7%)Suburb - 199(25.6%)No Response 23(3%)
District Size
0-499 - 83(10.7%)1000-1999 - 141(18.1%)5-10,000 - 100(12.9%)No Response - 48(6.2%)
Highest Ed. Level
Bachelors - 326(41.9%)Ph.D. - 10(1.3%)Other or No Response 29(3.7%)
Organizational Affiliation
AFT - 77(9.9%)None - 168(21.6%)No Response - 8(1%)
Career Goal
Team Leader/Chair - 86(11.1%)School Adm 62(8%)
No Response - 15(1.9%)
44
Rural - 254(32.6%)City - 242(31.1%)
500-999 - 96(12.3%)2000-4999 - 185(23.8%)Over 10,000 - 125(16.1%)
Masters - 327(42%)Postmasters - 86(11.1%)
NEA 464(59.6%)Other - 61(7.8%)
Teacher - 480(61.7%)Other - 135(17.4%)
48
Proportions from Self-Selection of Career Stages
___Frequency
1 Preservice 8 1.02 Induction 29 3.73 Competency Building 159 19.84 Enthusiastic & Growing 375 48.25 Stable and Stagnant 49 6.36 Career Frustration 78 10.07 Career Wind-down 59 7.68 Career Exit 3 0.4No Response ...22 3.0
778
TAILS 3
Stadadised Oiscrieinsat reaction Coefficients andCroup Maas for the Teacher Career Cycle Inventory
r: 7
ifc
Ce b
OsC
vg
1t?
#1I 11 III IV
* 1. It is exciting to decide chat I'm going to teach. .22 -.22
* 2. I reflect cm ey teschias career vith pirde. .18 .29
S. I still have a lot to learn about teaching .23 .23
* 6. tech year it becomes increasingly difficult to be enthusiastic about -.30 .44 .24
Wellies.* 7. I attend to @update' individual seeds. .23
* 8. I could be happier doing something other than teaching. .36
* 11. I am frustrated. -.36 -.25*11. I enjoy teaciliee and look forward to going to vork every dsy.
*14. I have a tremendous amount of carp. .25 .28
*15. I an involved is curriculums development. .37
*16. I an respected by ay students. -.22
*17. Graduate coufsevoft has helped me as a teacher.
*18. I try to slake each day better than the one before. .21
*20. I as gaieties comfort and security through experience. (F).32*21. I have established rapport via ey students. .20 -.33*22. I sepaviee etudeat cachets/Lasses. -.25 .27
*24. Administration does not want to bear problems of teachers. -.35*25. I an willies to try mew ideas end teaching strategies. .23 .21
*26. I have made a positive chases in ay teaching semisweet. -.20
*211. I an generally optimistic about teaching. -.43
*30. I seed posh to get ms through the doldrums. .30 -.28*32. I enjoy wry colleagues. -.34 .3734. There is sot enough budgetary support to purchase instructional
materials. -.22*35. I weld lite to teach part time so I could pursue other ie.erests. .29
*37. I enjoy my students. 35 -.31*40. I dated going to ark. .35
*43. I strive to improve ay teaching skills. .51 .47
*45. I provide opportunities to meet vith parents. -.47 -.31*46. Mete are few retards for ay professional efforts. -.32*48. Parents are supportive of wy teaching.*4o. Ian eatbesiastie about teaching. .29 -.29*SO. I an comfortable vith oust of vbat I teach. -.50 -.20*51. I enjoy seeing students respond positively to ey teaching. .41
*52. I question the compateace of &minim makes in ey school district. -.20*53. I ant to learn from other teachers. -.20
*58. the academic climate in sy school is discouraging -.24 .45
*p' .02
;
46
50
",
Table 3 (continued)
Fraction Iisenvalue Z of Variance Cum2 of Variance Canonical 7
Correlation
I Teacber tatbusiass 1.49 65.9 65.9 .77 .000
2 Interactive leaching'skills .30 13.2 79.1 .48 .000
3 attitados Toward4tedeats 6 leaching .11 9.3 88.4 .42 .000
4 Attitedoe Towardtacking as aPraised*.
amega2 a .7$
.17 7.6 96.0 .38 .007
CroupMaans T1 ?2 7 3 7 4
1 Proservice 6 IaductionQ1.11
.6 1.0 -1.4
2 Competency Wilding .4 4 .3 -.3
3 Istbusinetic i Crowing .6 .4 -.2 .3
4 Staid* i Stigma -.9 -1.4 -.9 -.9
S Career Frustration -2.7 -1.0 .1 -.1
6 Career Viad Down i Exit .4 -1.5 .5 .4
?unction
47
TABLE 4
Scheffe Pairwise Comparisons ofGroup Mean Discriminant Scores on Four Functions - TCCI
*p< .05
Function 1 Teaching Enthusiasm df F prob.Means Group 5 4 6 1 2 3 5/514 91.3 .00
- 2.7 5
- .9 4- .4 6
.3 1 * *
.4 2 * * *
.6 3 * * *
Function II Interactive Tee'hing Skills df F prob.Means Group 6 4 5 2 3 1 5/514 54.4 .00
- 1.5 6
- 1.4 4
- 1.0 5
.4 2 * * *
.4 3 * * *
.6 1 * * *
Function III Students and Teaching df F prob.Means Group 4 3 5 2 6 1 5/514 14.9 .00
- .9 4- .2 3
.1 5
.3 2 * *
.5 6 * *
1.0 1 * * *
Function IV Teaching as a Profession df F prob.Means Group 1 4 2 5 3 6 5/514 19.8 .00
- 1.4 1
- .9 4
- .3 2
- .1 5 * *
.3 3 * * *
.4 6 * * *
*Groups1. Pre-service and Induction2. Competency Building3. Enthusiastic and Growing4. Stable and Stagnant5. Career Frustration6. Career Wind-Down and Exit
48
TABLES
Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficientsand Group Means for the Personal/Organizational
Influences Inventory
gigr
0-Q *.l 0 °
(-)C1 0 C
00A 4 130 C44 °
I
ra,
80
C1 1:70T °II
Ai
i,-,
40
ti k
III
* 3. Travel -.20 .20* 5. Volunteer Activities .34* 9. Societal expectations for moral and
values education .36
*10. Principal's support of teachers .40 -.37*11. Religious activities -.28*12. Graduate education courses .26
*13. Special needs of family members -.15*14. Teacher union relationship with admini-
stration and school board .29 -.45*15. Previous work outside of schools -.26 -.3616. Personal opportunities for union
leadership .27
*18. Support for teachers by professionalassociations (not union) .61
*19. Research on effective teaching .30*21. Personal life goals and aspirations .33*22. Philosophical agreement with principal .6527. Family financial situation -.24 -.2830. Interpersonal relationships with friends .37 -.2534. Substance abuse by a family member -.31 .20
*35. Family expectations for time and priorities -.21 .56*40. Assignment of teaching responsibilities .26
*42. Need for community acceptance -.35*43. Principal's management style -.34 .32 .48*44. Drive to fulfill personal needs .30
*47. Financial loss .21 .2351. Need for security -.30 -.22
Function Eig.lvalue % of Variance Cum% of Variance Canonical PCorrelation
1 .44 44.6 44.6 .55 .0002 .25 25.7 70.3 .45 .0003 .17 16.7 87.0 .38 .004
omega2 - .53
49 53
Table 5 (continued)
1:5
o aC
V >,w >,, .,
4 ,40 C
P-i =
Group Means1 Preservice & Induction2 Competency Building3 Enthusiastic & Growing4 Career Frustration5 Stable & Stagnant6 Career Wind Down & Exit
0 0 0 ,08
4.IJ 0 c
W 12 /k c w f 0 $4 440.) 0
12, 00aC ra 14
Function 1 Function 2 Function 3.4 .6 -.4.6 -.4 .2
-.0 .3 .3
-.7 -.5 -.9-.6 .6 -.7.1 -.6 -.7
50
54
TABLE 6
Scheffe Pair-wise Comparisons ofGroup Mean Discriminant Scores on Three Functions P/OII
*p< .05
Function I Personal Needs & Goals df F prob.Means Group 5 4 6 3 1 2 5/475 13.5 .00
- .7 5
- .6 4- .0 6
.1 3
.4 1 * *
.6 2 * * *
Function IIMeans Group
- .6 4
- .6 6
- .5 5
- .4 2
.3 3
.6 1
Acceptance by Adm.& Community4 6 5 2 3 1
* * * ** * * *
df5/475
F13.7
prob.
.u0
Function III Extrinsic Support Influences df F prob.Means Group 5 4 6 1 2 3 5/475 21.4 .00
- .9 5
- .7 4
- .7 6
- .4 1
. 2 2 * * *
. 3 3 * * *
*Groups1. Pre-Service and Induction2. Competency Building3. Enthusiastic and Growing4. Stable and Stagnant5. Career Frustration6. Career 'rind -Down and Exit
51
55
TABLE 7
Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficientsand Group Means for the Teacher Incentives Inventory
Item Function I II III IV
* 4. Designation as master or lead teacher .51 .34
* 7. Professional organixation recognition or rewards -.19 .40
* 8. Verbal praise from principal /supervisor .81* 9. Written praise from principal/supervisor .33 .31 -.35*12. Praise from students -.49- -.3313. Promotion to administrative position -.38 -.23 -.45- -.4218. Aide support ."..9 -.3621. Leadership opporizintcies .28 .5722. Pleasant physical environment -.26 -.43 -.3123. Mentor/master teacher role24. Options for extra work in the summer .42 .43
25. Options for extra work during the year .30
*27. Early retirement options -.41 .39
28. Longer day and/or year options(with additional pay) .38 -.30 -.30
29. Flexible work day (year) .46*32. Educational loan forgiveness programs .33 -.46 -.43 .4433. Paid sabbatical leaves -.21 .25 -.20 .3236. Support for research and writing -.23 .59 -.2737. Released time for professional activities -.46 -.4638. Opportunities for professional advancement .38 -.3339. Job protection and security .24 -.2440. Attractive insurance benefits .36
*43. Control of instructional decisions .70 -.2444. Influence in school decision making -.25 .20
*Univari ate p < .10Item 11 significant but removed during step analysis
omega2 .45
Function Eigenvalue % of Variance Cum% of Variance CanonicalCorrelation
1 .22 30.1 30.1 .41k .002 .18 71.9 54.0 .39 .003 .14 18.3 72.3 .35 .004 .12 16.4 88.8 .33 .01
Table 7 (continued)
Q4Pw
C J.4.1 .) C
O... 0
O 0Tr ..4
CD 0.1 z g c 4,,0 c., .., 41 ..4
Nwl Q ."4Q 0 0 V C
CD chC*C 4 C M 0O ' C u ..4 MyyO 4/ C C Cc 4 4 4 4 gy
I-I 4 4 4
Group Means, F 1 F 2 F 3 F 4
1 Pre-Service-Induction .7 .2
2 Competency Building .2 -.1
3 Growing & Enthusiastic .1 .0
4 Stable & Stagnant -.6 -.9
5 Career Frustration -.6 -.1
6 Career Wind Down & Exit -.6 .2
5753
-.6 .3
-.2 .4
.2 .2
-.3 .2
.3 .5
-.8 -.3
TABLES
Scheffe Pair -vise Compa-isons of Group MeanDiscriminant Scores on Four Functions - TII
*p < .05
Function IMeans Group
Incentives in Teaching df F prob.
6 5 4 3 2 1 5/479 12.2 .00
- .6 6
- .6 5
- .6 4
.1 3 *
.2 2 *'.7 1 * *
Function II Concrete Incentives df F prob.
Means Group 4 5 2 3 1 6 5/479 5.6 .00
- .9 4
- .1 5
- .1 2 *
- .1 3 *
.0 1 *
.2 6 *
Function III Praise & Support Incentives df F prob.
Means group 6 1 4 2 3 5 5/479 9.9 .00
- .8 6
- .6 1
- .3 4
- .2 2
.2 3 * *
.3 5 * *
Function IV Praise & Recognition df F prob.
Means Group 6 4 3 1 2 5 5/479 7.9 .00
- .8 6
.6 4
.3 3
- .2
.2 2
.3 5
*Groups1. Pre-service and Induction2. Competency Building3. Enthusiastic and Growing
4. Stable and Stagnant5. Career Frustration6. Career Wind-Down and Exit
54
SS
TABLE 9
Results of Univariate ANOVA and Scheffe Testsfor PDDMI Items
dfSig. Group Mean
p Differences (p<.05)
1. University/college courses 5.99 5/455 .00 6<2, 4<2, 5<2, 3<2*
2. Workshops conducted b_
university/college personnel 5.74 5/457 .00 6<2, 5<2
6. Visitation of other classroomswithin or outside of district 2.64 5/460 .02 6<2
7. Conference or conventionattendance 3.93 5/458 .00 5<2
9. Non-teaching work experience 2.32 5/443 .04 N.S.D.
10. Regularly scheduled staffmeetings 4.42 5/455 .00 4<2, 4<3
13. Exchange teaching - withteachers in different grades,schools, etc. 2.21 5/455 .05 N.S.D.
*Groupr
1. Pre-service and Induction2. Competency Building3. Growing & Enthusiastic4. Stable & stagnant5. Career Frustration6. Career Exit & Wind Down
5955
top related